Devil May Cry Wiki

Not sure why my edits on Ebony and Ivory were ignored, but I'll change them back and give my explanation as to why I made the changes.

Ebony and Ivory ARE in fact Mk 23 pistols, they just lack the Laser Aiming Module, google a picture of a Mk 23 and you'll see the distinct sweeping groove that starts at the front of the barrel ( Luce and Ombra, however, are M1911 pistols.

As for my change to the term compensators, the technical name for these is "Muzzle Brakes."Derekoe 07:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Using this picture[1]: The Koch has an extending barrel, while the M1811 and E&I end right with the, I think it's called "stock". The triggerguard is curved in on the Koch, while the M1811 and E&I have it rounded outward. The Koch has that plasticy, grainy handle, while the M1911 and E&I have the walnut-looking handle, attached to the gun but not part of it like with the Koch. The E&I and M1911 also have a dip behind the trigger, while the Koch does not. Most importantly, both the E&I and M1911 have that little reloading hammer in the back, while the Koch does not. The only thing I'm seeing that the Koch and E&I have, but not the M1811 (using the wikipedia picture), is the grooved part below the chamber, and the sweeping groove you mentioned.
It also makes sense that Dante would be using the older gun, rather than one that only became available to civilians a few years previous (after 1995), judging by his commitment to use heirlooms of his father, and old guns besides (Spiral, etc.)
However, I believe the DMC1 novel covers the making of the guns, and it might actually be more specific over what type of gun it is, or at least how old. I'll try to get a hold of it (or if you could check, that would be good too) and see what it says. However, I've got to say that in the absence of an actual explanation from CAPCOM, the guns are much more similar to the M1911 than the Koch.Glorious CHAOS! 22:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
However, the trigger guards, as well as the handles, can be custom made, they are even explained as such. Luce and Ombra look exactly like M1911s, with the small groove at the bottom tip, whereas the Mk23, or even possibly the USP, have the swoop from the middle of the barrel's end further down the slide and then up. There are plenty of modifications made to the pistols, and it's even stated that they have different hammers, and even the slides are modified for the ejection of shells to different sides. I have the DMC1 book, and they only ever state E&I as .45s, but this is a passage from the book -

"He held the modified grip in his right hand; it had clearly been designed with a rapid firing speed in mind. The trigger guard had been carefully tailored to ensure there would be no hindrance to finger movement."

...considering how heavily modified the pistols are, even with the muzzle brakes, the slide is the one true feature of the pistol that has any semblance to an actual firearm, and E&I look a hell of a lot more like Mk 23s, or even USPs, than M1911s. I can tell you honestly that they are not M1911s like Luce and Ombra, but different weapons entirely. Unfortunately, the DMC1 book isn't entirely canonical either, as it skews some of the origins
The Koch doesn't appear to have hammers though, but I'm not very clear on gun anatomy. Comparing the DMC3 E&I pic to the L&O pic, the only difference I can see is the end of the chamber and the slide beneath it.
Most sources I've seen identify them as 1911's. (Ex: [2], [3])
It still seems odd to me that the E&I would look more like a weapon they aren't than one they allegedly are, and that Dante would be using a weapon only available to the public 5 years before the games are "set", though I've heard that the game's could be set even earlier in the century. (Does the novel say anything about the year, even in terms of centuries?) However, you are definitely right that the slide looks more like the Koch than any other suggestion we've had, and the rest of the gun is supposed to be customized, so it's a reasonable argument. Would it at all be possible to find an image of a modified Koch which resembles the E&I?
By the way, thank you very much for taking this discussion to the talk page instead of edit warring. It's a very appreciated trait.Glorious CHAOS! 07:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
No problem about edit warring, it's annoying, and I figure it better to discuss. The problem with the DMC series is there never really is any set time period in which they take place. It's more or less a fabricated modern fantasy world, since we see plenty of modern day culture in DMCs 1, 2, and 3, but then a lot of medieval culture in DMC4. The novel's never state a time period either, so the introduction of firearms is kind of up in the air. The modifications and designs of a firearm can be rather drastic, but I can say that the Mk.23 slides are present in E&I, but the small extension on the back where the hammers can be pulled down to are more a part of the grip than the slide, and since the grip was custom made for rapid fire, that extension on the back helps control the weapon during recoil, in turn making rapid fire easier. And thank you for understanding my opinions, instead of going crazy, like some other people on the internet do... Derekoe 05:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and trust your expertise on the subject. It does make sense that the gun could be heavily modified, so if the slide really is the one thing that wouldn't be changed, then go ahead and have the article reflect that.Glorious CHAOS! 15:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it appears to me to be a mix of these pistols. The top, especially this sweeping groove is indeed very Koch-like, but the handle is obviously very Colt-like. I'm confused. :P My (really crazy) version that they were made from the scratch. :)

Anyway, may I suggest both versions to be included in the article?

P.S.: Some pics I found... [4], [5] Flia 18:53, September 1, 2009 (UTC)

About time... Nero is wearing headphones at the beginning of DMC4. I don't know how long ago they were invented, but I have a feeling that it's very close to our time. Also, I remember them being wireless, and that is even closer. By the way, the phone in Dante's office is wireless too, although that could be a simplification. Flia 19:08, September 1, 2009 (UTC)

Derekoe has provided the only actual argument for them being a certain type of gun, and has pretty thoroughly debunked them being the Colt's, or at the very least cast very strong aspersions on it. The only sources that claim that they are M1911's, while being sites that list guns, never actually give any reasoning besides an "I said so", so those aren't reliable sources. By that reasoning, it would not be proper of us to call them M1911's when we have strong evidence on one side and no evidence on the other.
If an editor with some experience with guns can give an argument for them being a different gun (hell, even "I showed the image to the chairman of the local NRA chapter, and he said..."), then it would be appropriate to change it, but not until. I appreciate the attempt at compromise, but there's no reason we should have to compromise with untrustworthy info.Glorious CHAOS! 22:48, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

I read all comments of you and Derekoe and understood them, but as these guns are fantasy, imaginary guns, we cannot state, on principle, either side to be right. That's why I attempted making a compromise.

Besides, this isn't an "untrustworthy" information. They are opinions of the people who (hopefully) have some experience with guns, and until Capcom say something about E&I, they cannot state anything aside from speculations. We can't do that either.

To sum it up, to hell with these guns. If you really insist on your opinion, I won't interfere. There is nothing I can do, we can do.

P.S.: Still... I asked my father, who has some experience with guns and he immediately said them being Colts. After some discussing he became confused too :P, but still hasn't changed his opinion much. One of his arguments for E&I being Colts was the fact that they are often modified, and E&I are heavy modified pistols, whatever mark they are in "reality". I'm actually no firearms expert myself, but I trust him in such questions. Flia 20:59, September 12, 2009 (UTC)

To start off, we're not stating "either side to be right". We're stating "They appear to be so and so", which if there is reason to believe they are, is acceptable to say.
The reason why the claims were considered untrustworthy is that no one had ever actually given any reason for identifying them as Colts - they just said they were (and most of these were IP's, without even an edit comment or more than "This is a Colt M1911"), and the only source on the net I could find was a video game fan going through a quick list of guns in games, without going into detail. They may be right, but information provided in that manner is still untrustworthy. Compare those claims to this, for example.
Honestly, I have no "opinion" about what type of gun they were - I was loathe to have it changed to Mk23's in the first place, because of the same guideline I'm applying here. If there's going to be a claim about what they are, it needs to have evidence behind it, and not just hearsay, or we'll have edit wars.
However, your father seems to be a reliable enough source in this light, so yeah, we can go ahead and put them up as M1911's as well.
There's also this, from here:

Glorious CHAOS! 10:36, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

(the edit from was me, I just forgot to log in) Having some experience with firearms, I think the current edit is the most resonable. While Ebony and Ivory appear to be much more visually similar to the H&K Mk23 than the Colt M1911, they do seem to have components from both handguns.

I have created a diagram showing the similar and dissimilar components across the three weapons (counting E&I as one weapon).

  1. E&I and the Mk23 have very similar rail features under their barrels. This visual feature is nonexistent on the Colt M1911, instead featuring a rounded component (which contains the spring that drives the slide forward). Also E&I have extended barrels with muzzel breaks, which are absent from both the Mk23 and 1911
  2. The Mk23 has a very distinct groove in the slide, which is also present on E&I. The Colt M1911 instead has a flat slide with little definition (save for text and the grooves toward the back of the slide)
  3. The magazine release switch appears to be more like that of the Colt M1911 (being a button rather than a switch). On the Mk23 this appears to be more switch-like
  4. The trigger guards appear to be similar to both handguns. Ivory's trigger guard is similar to the 1911, where Ebony's is similar to the Mk23.
  5. The safety switch and surrounding areas on E&I appear to be more similar to the M1911
  6. The grooves in the slide are at an oblique angle on both the Mk23 and E&I, where they are vertical on the M1911
  7. Ebony's spur hammer is similar to that of the M1911, although Ivory's ring hammer shows that these were part of the modification. (The Mk23, like all handguns, has a hammer as well. Sometimes they are just difficult to see)

Gun comparison.jpg

Conclusion: While Ebony and Ivory are shown to have features from both the Mk23 and the M1911, the largest and most visually obvious components are from the Mk23. It seems reasonable to assume they are based primarily around the Mk23, with modifications made with components from the M1911. Luce and Ombra are also good to refer to, as they are most certainly based on the Colt M1911, and look significantly different from E&I. Also, E&I firing .45 calibre ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol) does not provide evidence for either side of the argument, as this is simply a type of ammunition, used in many firearms, not just the Colt M1911. Another notable feature is E&I's hand grips, which are different from both pistols (material of the grip is also irrelevant, as it varies across handguns of the same type). However, the grips are stated to be one of the main modifications to E&I, so they should be exempted from the comparison.

Overall, Ebony and Ivory appear to be based on the Heckler & Kock Mk23, while Luce and Ombra are based on the M1911. Since the guns were modified, it is not unreasonable that they should feature components from other handguns. --Aerid77 17:29, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

My edit was probably too lengthy last time, but E&I are still much more like the Mk23 than the Colt M1911. Just swapped names to indicate this (being that E&I appear to be Mk23s, or possibly 1911's) and removed the bracketed sans laser aiming module as E&I obviously lack that feature. --Aerid77 06:16, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
"Sans laser aiming module" means "without laser aiming module", which the Mk23 usually has. That's the way Derekoe worded it. If you really think that point is still clear with the present wording, then fine.
Honestly, I'm getting really tired of the back and forth on this article. The fact that we have various "gun experts", none of whom can agree, is kind of evidence that no one really knows what's going on, and my having to frequently clean up after the back and forth when I don't actually have a "side" in this is frustrating. Since it's pretty clear that neither side really has any authority on this, can we all agree to go with whatever an actual gun expert says, and not modify it without additional, expert sources? I think I can get a hold of one, or if one you guys can, good.Glorious CHAOS! 14:10, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to apologize in advance for my tone here, but I am truly stunned by both this article and it's discussion.
Does anyone here know anything about guns other than pictures from the internet? I find it humorous that there are people trying to push that these are Mk. 23s. This conclusion ignores the simple fact of firearms that, in regards to handguns, the frame is the first feature you look at to identify a weapon. It seems that every argument presented here seems to be based on the idea that all M1911s are just like the Colt M1911A1. A silly notion, seeing as most handgun manufactures (SIG-Sauer, S&W, Taurus, Para-Ordinance, SVI, Astra, ect.) make some form of M1911, and some manufactures are devoted entirely to custom 1911s (Kimber, Coonan, ect.) The reason people claim that these are 1911s but cant really explain why is because if you spend enough time around firearms, especially 1911s, you get to where you can look at a weapon and immediately tell that it's a 1911 derivative. The frames on E&I are quite clearly 1911 style frames. More specifically, they are 1911 double-stack frames, identifiable by the width relative to the trigger guard.
The absence of the trademark HK lever release should be a dead giveaway that it's not a Mk. 23, not to mention the classic Colt-style safety lever. Arguing that "The Mk23 has a very distinct groove in the slide, which is also present on E&I. The Colt M1911 instead has a flat slide with little definition" shows a complete lack of familiarity with the M1911 design's role in the firearm world. If I had a dollar for every kind of 1911 slide that I've seen, I'd be rich. Only the traditional M1911 slides can be expected to be perfectly smooth; the idea of beefing up the slide around the ejection port isn't new. Most STI slides are significantly wider than the standard 1911 design, and it's well withing the realm of possibility to narrow the forward portion of the slide to reduce weight. And the grooves don't matter either. Hand any gunsmith a $100 bill and an M1911, and he'll add any kind of grooves you want. Case in point[6]. Oh, and then there's the SIG-Sauer 1911 series, which is easily identifiable by the indentation running down the front of the slide[7].
Then of course there's the presence of wood grips. Apparently no one here has done enough research to know that the Mk.23's polymer frame doesn't use any sort of removable grip. And the slidelock system is identical to the Colt design. Not to mention the fact that there is no decock lever, a key feature on the Mk.23. Not to mention the lemon-grip safety (you can't see it in the image in this article.) Heck, even the bolt at the bottom of the grip is a giveaway that it's a 1911 design (that particular bold holds the mainspring housing/backstrap in place.) Arguing that the rails on E&I are similar to the rail on the Mk.23 is also rather silly, seeing as E&I's rails are very clearly bolted onto the frame. This is called "tapping the frame". It's an easy way to add a rail onto a frame that doesn't have one. And no, not all handguns use hammers. Think Glock, HS2000, Five-seveN, Beretta 92D, PF-9...--User:GunFreak 01:32, November 15, 2009 (UTC)
Awesome. Thank you, GunFreak. Can we all agree to use him as our expert source, then, since he seems to know what the hell he's talking about? I really don't want to have to go to a gun shop with a silly question like this.Glorious CHAOS! 03:40, November 15, 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. And I do apologize for my tone. I'm just having one of those days, and I tend to flip out when I see firearms-related mistakes (this was actually one of my more reserved rants). I normally don't come through here (I'm not much of a DMC fan), but I have a IRL friend who is and pointed me in the direction of this article (He's bit of a All-American, "use-1911-in-.45-or-GTFO" kinda' guy, so this particular error had him bleeding out of the eyes). If you want, I can go through and do an anatomical breakdown of the designs later. I'll just need to find some alternate angled shots first so that I make sure I get everything (I've already noticed a few design quirks, suck as the reversed controls on Ebony. That kind of modification exists, but it's very rare and require both a custom frame and custom (or alternate) magazines.) Oh, and I know it's kind of late to mention it, but the rounded chamber also screams 1911.--User:GunFreak 04:02, November 15, 2009 (UTC)
Your detailed design description is finished. Quite a laundry list of modifications. If someone were crazy enough to try and build these in real life, they'd probably cost a nice $3,500 apiece.--User:GunFreak 17:24, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed a few more inconsistencies between the various incarnations, and will be noting them appropriately. As for which gun goes in which hand, I'm just going off of sources #5 and #6 and the direction of the ejection ports in the various images provided.--User:GunFreak 01:00, March 23, 2010 (UTC)